Actually, it is disingenuous to decontextualise the quotes. Very much so indeed. The Islamic world has its own traditions of reading them, and our ignoring these traditions would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Are the Daesh an Islamic phenomenon? Yes, in the sense Crusades are a Christian phenomenon (or Buddhist anti-Bon violence is a Buddhist phenomenon). In other words, the Daesh entry should be found in a dictionary devoted to Islam -- but when you define Islam, no need to talk about the Daesh at all.

Islam is not an ideology -- some Islams, for some people, may be. Just as Buddhism, or Christianity, or atheism can be ideologies. For the vast majority of Muslims, Islam = a body of various practices* plus some assorted (and often lightly, or semi-consciously held) beliefs. A common misconception is the idea that an average Muslim reads and knows his or her Quran as a coherent doctrine espoused by some central authority figures. They do not, as anthropologists have been pointing out for years. Nor is there really anything like 'being faithful to the Quran', the Quran being no more unambiguous than the Bible (or any other similarly massive collection of various narratives belonging to all kinds of genres, for that matter). In other words, one may stick fast to the Quran, and become an all-inclusive, peace-loving, progressive perennialist (I have actually met quite a few such Muslims) -- or a traditional Salafist (who, btw, eschew terrorism and religious violence even though they are undeniably deeply conservative by our standards) -- or a Wahhabi terrorist. The latter path is an anathema to all progressive, but also the vast majority of conservative, Muslim theologians, though.

* That is what 'religions' are to the vast majority of people all over the world. Only a tiny portion knows anything, or cares, about the 'doctrine' that the 19th century some Protestant theologians wanted to see as the 'heart' of a given 'religion'. It is true for various 'native religions', goes without saying, but no less true for such so-called world religions as Christianity, Buddhism or Islam.

Fa Dao wrote:I have looked at all of the quotes in the koran that Gloria posted. It is intellectually disingenuous to say that they are taken out of context if one hasn't actually read them and the lines before and after them. The same goes for saying that ISIS is not really representing islam. Those in ISIS take those quotes to heart and try to live by them, and therein lies the problem. I think it is also misleading and irrelevant to bring up the horrific shit found in the old testament..why? simply because you don't have large groups of people that take it seriously and try to live by it and impose it on other people. So, the entire concept of "combating extremism" is not truly relevant. They are not "extremists" if they are following the koran to the letter. I think it would be more accurate to say "combating totalitarian ideologies". This is in no way saying that all muslims are bad, evil etc. In fact the majority are probably quite peaceful and just want to have a good life like everyone else. Islam is an ideology, not a race. It does not make one racist or islamaphobic to bring to the discussion table the fact that there is a considerable amount of totalitarian ideological writings in the koran that are in direct conflict with basic human rights. There are approximately 1.5 billion muslims in the world today. An extremely conservative estimate of 1% actually tries to follow the koran to the letter and are intent upon imposing it on the entire planet. Do the math..thats 15 million people bent upon forcefully and violently spreading islam over the entire planet. Until the world acknowledges the threat that this poses, this ideology will continue to spread and grow...hopefully the world wakes up before its too late.....

I feel the same, at least in some sense. Regardless of the context, or interpretation, having parts of your religious doctrine tell you to kill non-believers is dangerous. These thing's are always prone to interpretation by those who practice them. What if Buddhism had a sutra that told us to kill non-believers, we would almost certaintly have buddhist terrorist sects dedicated to it. Does anyone really think this is an inconsequential fact???

I don't pretend to have a solution, or think that banning islam is just, or even possible. I just recognize the fact that as long as their exist's passages like this in their religious text, there will be those who are dedicated to carrying them out.

The cost of a thing is the amount of what I call life which is required to be exchanged for it, immediately or in the long run.
-Henry David Thoreau

treehuggingoctopus wrote:Actually, it is disingenuous to decontextualise the quotes. Very much so indeed. The Islamic world has its own traditions of reading them, and our ignoring these traditions would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Are the Daesh an Islamic phenomenon? Yes, in the sense Crusades are a Christian phenomenon (or Buddhist anti-Bon violence is a Buddhist phenomenon). In other words, the Daesh entry should be found in a dictionary devoted to Islam -- but when you define Islam, no need to talk about the Daesh at all.

Islam is not an ideology -- some Islams, for some people, may be. Just as Buddhism, or Christianity, or atheism can be ideologies. For the vast majority of Muslims, Islam = a body of various practices* plus some assorted (and often lightly, or semi-consciously held) beliefs. A common misconception is the idea that an average Muslim reads and knows his or her Quran as a coherent doctrine espoused by some central authority figures. They do not, as anthropologists have been pointing out for years. Nor is there really anything like 'being faithful to the Quran', the Quran being no more unambiguous than the Bible (or any other similarly massive collection of various narratives belonging to all kinds of genres, for that matter). In other words, one may stick fast to the Quran, and become an all-inclusive, peace-loving, progressive perennialist (I have actually met quite a few such Muslims) -- or a traditional Salafist (who, btw, eschew terrorism and religious violence even though they are undeniably deeply conservative by our standards) -- or a Wahhabi terrorist. The latter path is an anathema to all progressive, but also the vast majority of conservative, Muslim theologians, though.

* That is what 'religions' are to the vast majority of people all over the world. Only a tiny portion knows anything, or cares, about the 'doctrine' that the 19th century some Protestant theologians wanted to see as the 'heart' of a given 'religion'. It is true for various 'native religions', goes without saying, but no less true for such so-called world religions as Christianity, Buddhism or Islam.

What your problem is with analysing Islam is that you read it as christian/Buddhist who very much have this'd greater vision of the world for people's being like him, and therefore they are not muslims but Christians who like you read the Quran, you think all the people in the world just wait to be egocentric, agnostic living for their Own happiness like most of the west. What if they are not, just because most of them don't suicide bomb around does not mean that they don't have agenda, that is different from the christian-buddhist "all live well in their own way", maybe they want you to live under sharia laws, not on your way. There Was modernisation and westernization in muslim countries early 20th century till the 70s and then it started the opposite process, putting hijab, burka, or simply following muslim agenda that is not the judeo-chritian or Buddhist one. If you think Quran is too old for you to care, read their law systems, or presidential statements

gloriasteinem wrote:What your problem is with analysing Islam is that you read it as christian/Buddhist who very much have this'd greater vision of the world for people's being like him, and therefore they are not muslims but Christians who like you read the Quran, you think all the people in the world just wait to be egocentric, agnostic living for their Own happiness like most of the west. What if they are not, just because most of them don't suicide bomb around does not mean that they don't have agenda, that is different from the christian-buddhist "all live well in their own way", maybe they want you to live under sharia laws, not on your way. There Was modernisation and westernization in muslim countries early 20th century till the 70s and then it started the opposite process, putting hijab, burka, or simply following muslim agenda that is not the judeo-chritian or Buddhist one. If you think Quran is too old for you to care, read their law systems, or presidential statements

The problem with your analysis is that your Islam is the Other to the West you identify with.

I suggest that you acquaint yourself with what the people who actually specialise in the field, and are not biased against what they study, have written. You may well be surprised -- unless of course you reject it out of hand due to cognitive dissonance. You may also find out that the 'sharia law' is not quite what you think it is.

There is no single (or dominant) 'Muslim agenda'. Nor is there anything like the 'Buddhist agenda' or the 'Christian one'. There Christian, Buddhist and Muslim agendas, lots of them. Some are rather unpalatable. Most are OK. A few are quite worth devoting one's life to.

Fa Dao wrote:I have looked at all of the quotes in the koran that Gloria posted. It is intellectually disingenuous to say that they are taken out of context if one hasn't actually read them and the lines before and after them. The same goes for saying that ISIS is not really representing islam. Those in ISIS take those quotes to heart and try to live by them, and therein lies the problem. I think it is also misleading and irrelevant to bring up the horrific shit found in the old testament..why? simply because you don't have large groups of people that take it seriously and try to live by it and impose it on other people. So, the entire concept of "combating extremism" is not truly relevant. They are not "extremists" if they are following the koran to the letter. I think it would be more accurate to say "combating totalitarian ideologies". This is in no way saying that all muslims are bad, evil etc. In fact the majority are probably quite peaceful and just want to have a good life like everyone else. Islam is an ideology, not a race. It does not make one racist or islamaphobic to bring to the discussion table the fact that there is a considerable amount of totalitarian ideological writings in the koran that are in direct conflict with basic human rights. There are approximately 1.5 billion muslims in the world today. An extremely conservative estimate of 1% actually tries to follow the koran to the letter and are intent upon imposing it on the entire planet. Do the math..thats 15 million people bent upon forcefully and violently spreading islam over the entire planet. Until the world acknowledges the threat that this poses, this ideology will continue to spread and grow...hopefully the world wakes up before its too late.....

I feel the same, at least in some sense. Regardless of the context, or interpretation, having parts of your religious doctrine tell you to kill non-believers is dangerous. These thing's are always prone to interpretation by those who practice them. What if Buddhism had a sutra that told us to kill non-believers, we would almost certaintly have buddhist terrorist sects dedicated to it. Does anyone really think this is an inconsequential fact???

I don't pretend to have a solution, or think that banning islam is just, or even possible. I just recognize the fact that as long as their exist's passages like this in their religious text, there will be those who are dedicated to carrying them out.

People don't typically commit violence because a book tells them to. Violent interpretations are typically undertaken by violent people and it is circumstances that produce violent people.

The Torah has some pretty violent passage as well and yet I don't see many committing terrorism and using the Torah as justification. The violence we are currently seeing in the Islamic world is a product of circumstances, you can see the exact same sorts of violence happening currently in Christian countries in Africa and Buddhist countries in Asia.

pothigai wrote:The violence we are currently seeing in the Islamic world is a product of circumstances...

Yes, exactly. That is what we need to be focusing on.

The fundamentalism we see in the Islamic world is a product of Saudia Arabia exporting and paying for it . Fundamentalism was/is a reaction to the failed civil rulers: Assad, the Shah of Iran, Mubarak. The problem with Islamic countries is that they have faulty development of independent civil institutions and judiciary. The problem is that minorities, ethnic nor religious aren't well protected. Try being an Arab Copt or Yezidi; you are persecuted.

The problem with Islamic societies for the most is that women are not accorded equal rights with men.

Islam right now is about 400 years behind the West; they're going through the wars of religion. When they separate church from state etc..things will calm down. The problem for the West is globalism and easy travel so that their problems have become ours as Islamism is being exported.

The problem with the West is that they decided on 'multiculturalism' not forcing immigrants to assimilate to their cultural values. The problem with the West is that Enlightenment values of democracy, equal rights for all, separation of church and state are not publicly taught and valued. Is the West and are Western values perfect? No of course not but speaking as a Lesbian woman it's the best ensurer that I can live a full happy life.
gassho
Rory

Namu Kanzeon Bosatsu
Chih-I:
The Tai-ching states "the women in the realms of Mara, Sakra and Brahma all neither abandoned ( their old) bodies nor received (new) bodies. They all received buddhahood with their current bodies (genshin)" Thus these verses state that the dharma nature is like a great ocean. No right or wrong is preached (within it) Ordinary people and sages are equal, without superiority or inferiority
Paul, Groner "The Lotus Sutra in Japanese Culture"eds. Tanabe p. 58https://www.tendai-usa.org/

Fa Dao wrote:I have looked at all of the quotes in the koran that Gloria posted. It is intellectually disingenuous to say that they are taken out of context if one hasn't actually read them and the lines before and after them. The same goes for saying that ISIS is not really representing islam. Those in ISIS take those quotes to heart and try to live by them, and therein lies the problem. I think it is also misleading and irrelevant to bring up the horrific shit found in the old testament..why? simply because you don't have large groups of people that take it seriously and try to live by it and impose it on other people. So, the entire concept of "combating extremism" is not truly relevant. They are not "extremists" if they are following the koran to the letter. I think it would be more accurate to say "combating totalitarian ideologies". This is in no way saying that all muslims are bad, evil etc. In fact the majority are probably quite peaceful and just want to have a good life like everyone else. Islam is an ideology, not a race. It does not make one racist or islamaphobic to bring to the discussion table the fact that there is a considerable amount of totalitarian ideological writings in the koran that are in direct conflict with basic human rights. There are approximately 1.5 billion muslims in the world today. An extremely conservative estimate of 1% actually tries to follow the koran to the letter and are intent upon imposing it on the entire planet. Do the math..thats 15 million people bent upon forcefully and violently spreading islam over the entire planet. Until the world acknowledges the threat that this poses, this ideology will continue to spread and grow...hopefully the world wakes up before its too late.....

I feel the same, at least in some sense. Regardless of the context, or interpretation, having parts of your religious doctrine tell you to kill non-believers is dangerous. These thing's are always prone to interpretation by those who practice them. What if Buddhism had a sutra that told us to kill non-believers, we would almost certaintly have buddhist terrorist sects dedicated to it. Does anyone really think this is an inconsequential fact???

I don't pretend to have a solution, or think that banning islam is just, or even possible. I just recognize the fact that as long as their exist's passages like this in their religious text, there will be those who are dedicated to carrying them out.

People don't typically commit violence because a book tells them to. Violent interpretations are typically undertaken by violent people and it is circumstances that produce violent people.

The Torah has some pretty violent passage as well and yet I don't see many committing terrorism and using the Torah as justification. The violence we are currently seeing in the Islamic world is a product of circumstances, you can see the exact same sorts of violence happening currently in Christian countries in Africa and Buddhist countries in Asia.

That is untrue. The quran isn't just a book, it's a holy book that describes and directs the followers of a religion. You can't deny how seriously people take their religious beliefs, comparing a holy book to just any book is apples and oranges.

But yes, the problem is that while the world is in strife, there will always be alot of angry, violent people. When you take these people and give them a religion that justifies violence in the name of god, you've got a terrible situation. There really just isnt any way to deny this. I mean if the average person really believes that by commiting suicide and killing a bunch of non-believers, they will get into heaven, and god will be happy with them, why wouldn't they take that option? Look at their country and world, it's being reduced to shit by the rest of the world plucking up their resources like vultures. I mean, beyond the fact that terrorism sucks for the victims, the exteamists are also victims of their own frickin religion.

The cost of a thing is the amount of what I call life which is required to be exchanged for it, immediately or in the long run.
-Henry David Thoreau

Muni, Thanks for mentioning Kabirs bijaks His penetrating insight has always been a draw card for many. " Student, tell me, what is God?
He is the breath inside the breath"http://www.poemhunter.com/kabir/

Fa Dao wrote:There are approximately 1.5 billion muslims in the world today. An extremely conservative estimate of 1% actually tries to follow the koran to the letter and are intent upon imposing it on the entire planet. Do the math..thats 15 million people bent upon forcefully and violently spreading islam over the entire planet.

I will ignore the rest of your half-truths and slander for now to challenge you on this: Where are your 15 million doctrinaire Muslims intent on imposing the Koran on the entire planet?
Please produce evidence for statements like this or admit that you have none.
Kim

dreambow wrote:Muni, Thanks for mentioning Kabirs bijaks His penetrating insight has always been a draw card for many. " Student, tell me, what is God?
He is the breath inside the breath"http://www.poemhunter.com/kabir/

+ 1

... and this:

I said to the wanting-creature inside me:
What is this river you want to cross?
There are no travelers on the river-road, and no road.
Do you see anyone moving about on that bank, or nesting?

There is no river at all, and no boat, and no boatman.
There is no tow rope either, and no one to pull it.
There is no ground, no sky, no time, no bank, no ford!

And there is no body, and no mind!
Do you believe there is some place that will make the
soul less thirsty?
In that great absence you will find nothing.

Be strong then, and enter into your own body;
there you have a solid place for your feet.
Think about it carefully!
Don't go off somewhere else!

Kabir says this: just throw away all thoughts of
imaginary things,
and stand firm in that which you are.

Number 1 of a series I could call “The wit and wisdom of Facebook.”
(Don’t laugh - both do exist! It’s just a matter of sifting through the crap (and you may like to recall Sturgeon’s Law: “Ninety per cent of *everything* is crap”).)
I am posting them one at a time so that anyone who wants to comment on any single one of them can easily do so. I have a few more lined up but I won't overload you by posting all at once.

Attached to this one was a comment which may have been from its creator: "I’m tired of this damn photo, so I fixed it."

Fa Dao wrote:There are approximately 1.5 billion muslims in the world today. An extremely conservative estimate of 1% actually tries to follow the koran to the letter and are intent upon imposing it on the entire planet. Do the math..thats 15 million people bent upon forcefully and violently spreading islam over the entire planet.

I will ignore the rest of your half-truths and slander for now to challenge you on this: Where are your 15 million doctrinaire Muslims intent on imposing the Koran on the entire planet?
Please produce evidence for statements like this or admit that you have none.
Kim

I really don't see any slander in his post, maybe misinformed numbers but even still he has a point. I can't 'tell' you where 15 million radical islamists are, but you only have to look at paris, mali and now belgium to see a few of them. As long as there exists any muslims who preach and emphasize the violent parts of the quaran, there is a problem. I mean, ethics and morals aside, how can you argue with these people that they are wrong, when their holy book indeed does say to kill non-believers.

Recently President obama said non-violent muslims account for 99.9% of the religion. If true, that leaves 00.1% of 1.57 Billion, which is 157,000 radical islamists, which sounds like a conservative number, but even that number is insanely large. It's not a small thing that around 160,000 muslims interpret the quaran in this way.

According to an ICM Research poll in 2006, 20% of British Muslims felt sympathy with the July 7 terrorist bombers' "feelings and motives", although 99 per cent thought the bombers were wrong to carry out the atrocity.[24] In another poll by NOP Research, almost one in four British Muslims believe that the 7/7 attacks on London were justified.[25]

In a Pew Research study from 2006, at least 1 in 4 respondents in the Muslim nations surveyed, except Turkey, had at least some confidence in Bin Laden. Confidence in Bin Laden was 16% or less among Muslims in the four European nations surveyed.[26]

In a 2007 Pew Research poll in response to a question on whether suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets to defend Islam could be justified,[27] in Europe:

(36 vs 64) 64% of Muslims in France believed it could never be justified, 19% believed it could be justified rarely, 10% sometimes, and 6% thought it could be justified often.
(30 vs 70) 70% of Muslims in Britain believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 12% sometimes, and 3% thought it could be justified often.
(17 vs 83) 83% of Muslims in Germany believed it could never be justified, 6% believed it could be justified rarely, 6% sometimes, and 1% thought it could be justified often.
(31 vs 69) 69% of Muslims in Spain believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 10% sometimes, and 6% thought it could be justified often.

In mainly Muslim countries:

(55 vs 45) 45% of Muslims in Egypt believed it could never be justified, 25% believed it could be justified rarely, 20% sometimes, and 8% thought it could be justified often.
(39 vs 61) 61% of Muslims in Turkey believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 14% sometimes, and 3% thought it could be justified often.
(57 vs 43) 43% of Muslims in Jordan believed it could never be justified, 28% believed it could be justified rarely, 24% sometimes, and 5% thought it could be justified often.
(72 vs 28) 28% of Muslims in Nigeria believed it could never be justified, 23% believed it could be justified rarely, 38% sometimes, and 8% thought it could be justified often.
(31 vs 69) 69% of Muslims in Pakistan believed it could never be justified, 8% believed it could be justified rarely, 7% sometimes, and 7% thought it could be justified often.
(29 vs 71) 71% of Muslims in Indonesia believed it could never be justified, 18% believed it could be justified rarely, 8% sometimes, and 2% thought it could be justified often.

A 2013 Pew Research Center poll asked Muslims around the world whether attacks on civilians were justified. Globally 72% of Muslims said violence against civilians is never justified, and in the US, 81% of Muslims opposed such violence. About 14% of Muslims in the nations surveyed (and 8% of Muslims in the US) said violence against civilians is "often" or "sometimes" justified. 26% of Muslims in Bangladesh believe attacks are either somewhat justified or often justified, 18% in Malaysia, 7% in Iraq, 15% in Jordan, 29% in Egypt, 39% in Afghanistan and 40% in the Palestinian territories.[30][31][32] The survey did not include some Muslim nations, such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Yemen, Syria, and Libya, but did include densely populated Muslim countries such as Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Nigeria and Indonesia.[33] According to a 2007 poll conducted by the PolicyExchange think tank in Britain, nearly 60% said they would prefer to live under British law, while 37% of 16- to 24-year-olds said they would prefer sharia law, against 17% of those over 55. Also, 36%[34] of 16- to 24-year-olds British Muslims believed that those converting to another religion should be executed. Less than a fifth of those over 55 think so.[35]

Fa Dao wrote:There are approximately 1.5 billion muslims in the world today. An extremely conservative estimate of 1% actually tries to follow the koran to the letter and are intent upon imposing it on the entire planet. Do the math..thats 15 million people bent upon forcefully and violently spreading islam over the entire planet.

I will ignore the rest of your half-truths and slander for now to challenge you on this: Where are your 15 million doctrinaire Muslims intent on imposing the Koran on the entire planet?
Please produce evidence for statements like this or admit that you have none.
Kim

... I can't 'tell' you where 15 million radical islamists are, but you only have to look at paris, mali and now belgium to see a few of them. As long as there exists any muslims who preach and emphasize the violent parts of the quaran, there is a problem.
Recently President obama said non-violent muslims account for 99.9% of the religion. If true, that leaves 00.1% of 1.57 Billion, which is 157,000 radical islamists, which sounds like a conservative number, but even that number is insanely large. It's not a small thing that around 160,000 muslims interpret the quaran in this way.

So the biggest number you can come up with is about 1% of Fa Dao's 15 million, and your best authority for it is a ball-park figure from someone who was very obviously not quoting statistics at all.
I'm not going to get into the polls you quote except to say that I don't trust the reliability or accuracy of any of them because they have effectively been disproved by recent history.
15 million raving lunatics baying for blood? Nope, obviously not. 150 000 of them? Not that many, either. If we set aside ISIS on its home ground for a moment, the numbers are tiny. A dozen here, ten there, half a dozen in the other place, and so it goes. If you added up all the Muslims who have actively participated in an act of terror in(say) the last five years, how many do you get?
That is a serious question, by the way. I'm not interested in hypotheticals, because they can be used to 'prove' any 'fact' you like, but in observable reality.

And ISIS? Estimates vary wildly but the highest I've seen is 200 000 and that includes a lot of people who are surely neither fighters not radical Islamists. If a bunch of heavily armed thugs arrives in your village, shoots some of your friends and then asks you, "Are you on our side or are you going to fight us?" what do you say?

Kim O'Hara wrote:
So the biggest number you can come up with is about 1% of Fa Dao's 15 million, and your best authority for it is a ball-park figure from someone who was very obviously not quoting statistics at all.
I'm not going to get into the polls you quote except to say that I don't trust the reliability or accuracy of any of them because they have effectively been disproved by recent history.
15 million raving lunatics baying for blood? Nope, obviously not. 150 000 of them? Not that many, either. If we set aside ISIS on its home ground for a moment, the numbers are tiny. A dozen here, ten there, half a dozen in the other place, and so it goes. If you added up all the Muslims who have actively participated in an act of terror in(say) the last five years, how many do you get?
That is a serious question, by the way. I'm not interested in hypotheticals, because they can be used to 'prove' any 'fact' you like, but in observable reality.

And ISIS? Estimates vary wildly but the highest I've seen is 200 000 and that includes a lot of people who are surely neither fighters not radical Islamists. If a bunch of heavily armed thugs arrives in your village, shoots some of your friends and then asks you, "Are you on our side or are you going to fight us?" what do you say?

Kim

What an obviously knee-jerk reactionary post. I posted sourced material backing up everything I wrote. You haven't. It's pretty easy to just claim my sourced material is false without any evidence to support your claim. You act like stating facts about islamist extreamists is somehow prejudiced, Don't make me laugh. Also I never stated his 15m figure was accurate, in fact I very blantly said his numbers were misguided.

Trying to point out the problems inherant in a religion does not make people prejudiced, it makes those willing to defend said religion ignorant. Going by the poll figures which seem to be unbiased-- if a bit old, many muslims while not extreamists, seem to support this extreamism.

So before you make completely irrelvant statements, such as "and your best authority for it is a ball-park figure from someone who was very obviously not quoting statistics at all. ", Perhaps you should read the polls, and sources they came from, before entirely dismissing them because they disagree with your opinion.

Also before you call the numbers tiny, perhaps think the families of the dead. I'm sure you wouldn't be calling them a tiny miniority if some of your loved ones were blown to pieces.

The cost of a thing is the amount of what I call life which is required to be exchanged for it, immediately or in the long run.
-Henry David Thoreau

Fa Dao wrote:There are approximately 1.5 billion muslims in the world today. An extremely conservative estimate of 1% actually tries to follow the koran to the letter and are intent upon imposing it on the entire planet. Do the math..thats 15 million people bent upon forcefully and violently spreading islam over the entire planet.

I will ignore the rest of your half-truths and slander for now to challenge you on this: Where are your 15 million doctrinaire Muslims intent on imposing the Koran on the entire planet?
Please produce evidence for statements like this or admit that you have none.
Kim

I really don't see any slander in his post, maybe misinformed numbers but even still he has a point. I can't 'tell' you where 15 million radical islamists are, but you only have to look at paris, mali and now belgium to see a few of them. As long as there exists any muslims who preach and emphasize the violent parts of the quaran, there is a problem. I mean, ethics and morals aside, how can you argue with these people that they are wrong, when their holy book indeed does say to kill non-believers.

Recently President obama said non-violent muslims account for 99.9% of the religion. If true, that leaves 00.1% of 1.57 Billion, which is 157,000 radical islamists, which sounds like a conservative number, but even that number is insanely large. It's not a small thing that around 160,000 muslims interpret the quaran in this way.

According to an ICM Research poll in 2006, 20% of British Muslims felt sympathy with the July 7 terrorist bombers' "feelings and motives", although 99 per cent thought the bombers were wrong to carry out the atrocity.[24] In another poll by NOP Research, almost one in four British Muslims believe that the 7/7 attacks on London were justified.[25]

In a Pew Research study from 2006, at least 1 in 4 respondents in the Muslim nations surveyed, except Turkey, had at least some confidence in Bin Laden. Confidence in Bin Laden was 16% or less among Muslims in the four European nations surveyed.[26]

In a 2007 Pew Research poll in response to a question on whether suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets to defend Islam could be justified,[27] in Europe:

(36 vs 64) 64% of Muslims in France believed it could never be justified, 19% believed it could be justified rarely, 10% sometimes, and 6% thought it could be justified often.
(30 vs 70) 70% of Muslims in Britain believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 12% sometimes, and 3% thought it could be justified often.
(17 vs 83) 83% of Muslims in Germany believed it could never be justified, 6% believed it could be justified rarely, 6% sometimes, and 1% thought it could be justified often.
(31 vs 69) 69% of Muslims in Spain believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 10% sometimes, and 6% thought it could be justified often.

In mainly Muslim countries:

(55 vs 45) 45% of Muslims in Egypt believed it could never be justified, 25% believed it could be justified rarely, 20% sometimes, and 8% thought it could be justified often.
(39 vs 61) 61% of Muslims in Turkey believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 14% sometimes, and 3% thought it could be justified often.
(57 vs 43) 43% of Muslims in Jordan believed it could never be justified, 28% believed it could be justified rarely, 24% sometimes, and 5% thought it could be justified often.
(72 vs 28) 28% of Muslims in Nigeria believed it could never be justified, 23% believed it could be justified rarely, 38% sometimes, and 8% thought it could be justified often.
(31 vs 69) 69% of Muslims in Pakistan believed it could never be justified, 8% believed it could be justified rarely, 7% sometimes, and 7% thought it could be justified often.
(29 vs 71) 71% of Muslims in Indonesia believed it could never be justified, 18% believed it could be justified rarely, 8% sometimes, and 2% thought it could be justified often.

A 2013 Pew Research Center poll asked Muslims around the world whether attacks on civilians were justified. Globally 72% of Muslims said violence against civilians is never justified, and in the US, 81% of Muslims opposed such violence. About 14% of Muslims in the nations surveyed (and 8% of Muslims in the US) said violence against civilians is "often" or "sometimes" justified. 26% of Muslims in Bangladesh believe attacks are either somewhat justified or often justified, 18% in Malaysia, 7% in Iraq, 15% in Jordan, 29% in Egypt, 39% in Afghanistan and 40% in the Palestinian territories.[30][31][32] The survey did not include some Muslim nations, such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Yemen, Syria, and Libya, but did include densely populated Muslim countries such as Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Nigeria and Indonesia.[33] According to a 2007 poll conducted by the PolicyExchange think tank in Britain, nearly 60% said they would prefer to live under British law, while 37% of 16- to 24-year-olds said they would prefer sharia law, against 17% of those over 55. Also, 36%[34] of 16- to 24-year-olds British Muslims believed that those converting to another religion should be executed. Less than a fifth of those over 55 think so.[35]

John Esposito, using poll data from Gallup, wrote in 2008 that Muslims and Americans were equally likely to reject violence against civilians. He also found that those Muslims who support violence against civilians are no more religious than Muslims who do not.

Seems to be a pretty interesting point in the article, not sure why you didn't mention it.

In the 14 years since the September 11 attacks, domestic right-wing extremists, including white nationalists, have killed more innocent people in the United States than jihadists inspired by al-Qaeda and ISIS. Professors Charles Kurzman and David Schanzer reviewed the statistics in the New York Times:

Despite public anxiety about extremists inspired by Al Qaeda and the Islamic State, the number of violent plots by such individuals has remained very low. Since 9/11, an average of nine American Muslims per year have been involved in an average of six terrorism-related plots against targets in the United States. Most were disrupted, but the 20 plots that were carried out accounted for 50 fatalities over the past 13 and a half years.

In contrast, right-wing extremists averaged 337 attacks per year in the decade after 9/11, causing a total of 254 fatalities, according to a study by Arie Perliger, a professor at the United States Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center. The toll has increased since the study was released in 2012.

Their article was published a day before the Charleston massacre, when a white nationalist named Dylann Storm Roof was accused of opening fire in a black church, killing 9 people.

I see no solution in reacting with aggression on aggression. Bombs on bombs. When one destroy this group, an even bigger pops up, it is obvious that we do not kill fire with fire. The hatred and revenge are not destroyed, even reinforced. I am not sure how constructive dialogues can be made. I guess there will be a lot of dialogues and other support needful to calm the fire.

The causes, conditions behind, or the triggers ( for ego) to create very destructive emotions and grasp to words to justify such, should come at the surface in dialogues. Dialogues are looking very difficult and even not possible but another solution I cannot see.

By aggression are only victims; those who commit the aggresive action and those who have to undergo it. Both are victim of confusion.

Then as well, HH Dalai Lama said something like it is time for spirituality beyond religion, since now that people and religions are spreading , this starts to make a mess everywhere.

Without the ego, there is no religious conflict, since there is no my religion and by that no their religion. I thought that’s the way to combat extremism.

This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness.
His Holiness Dalai Lama.

There are just two acceptable solutions, both perfectly feasible, both highly unlikely to happen: (1) we get a UN mandate and move in, trying to help the people there rebuild their lives. As simple as that. Works provided our intention as well as conduct are nothing less than stellar. (2) we withdraw totally and unconditionally for good, and do nothing whatsoever no matter what grotesque atrocities the Daesh subject us to. Works provided we actually do it. A brutal and callous option, it is still way better than our present 'strategy'.